About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the speeches he made recently calculated that nato and the fact that the experience in afghanistan is not over yet, but hasn't been a terrifically happy one for nato and not might serve as lead to a which we just don't have the will anymore, the intention to stay on the same scale before, particularly the exception that her partners are are now pulling away. how do you think will really keep nato going? to sustain nato and keep it relevant given her budgetary restrictions? >> in intervening event poses a threat. we thought a little research and said nato the libya situation, where clearly the united states is not going to take the lead, was going to supply reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and a little bit of backup. either nato getting together going forward are not. the threat of you stabilize libya, consequences of that for southern europe, the history with european presence they are as a precipitating event. but i think it's going to take something similar to that, one issue that potentially could be that is the whole situation of their weapons things in the fact that europe would
, and i think now it would make sense that we have sent troops to deploy nato patriot missiles to defend turkey against syria, they see that as something that goes against their fundamentalist ideological thinking, and as a result of that, the group has been called into action. unfortunately, as small as this group might be, one could anticipate future targets on u.s. interests in turkey should further nay to have or troop and hardware ce employments take place in theing months. -- in the coming months. jenna: what do you think is the correct united states response? >> well, first of all, we have to be very serious. this is an attack on a nato country inside a nato country. turkey's a great ally. they've been a member of nato since 1951, and this is a serious attack. this is the eighth attack on an embassy under hillary clinton alone. so we have to have a tough response. i think that it's also very interesting that these attacks are happening when the u.s. policy in the region is really withdrawn. we are not active in syria. we are doing just little, minor things around the edges, and ye
the importance to be vigilant at u.s. and nato and conduct operations on the turkey syria border and calls into question again how to best ensure the safety of u.s. embassy personnel. later this hour we'll talk to peter brooks, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for his take on the latest attack on u.s. interests in that region. >>> well, rebels reportedly capturing a key area in war-torn syria. activists say that opposition fighters now have control of a strategic neighborhood in a northern city, and that's near the international airport. putting rebels in control of a road that regime forces loyal to president assad had used as a supply route. rebels and government troops have been locked in a deadly stale mate in the area since last summer. >>> in egypt now the country's prime minister is warning that chaos is threatening the nation's ailing economy. street violence there and political unrest engulfing egypt for more than a week. all of this coming a day after angry mobs hurled fire bombs at the presidential palace in cairo. egypt's foreign currency reserves have been cut in h
go on and on. nato expansion. all the things taken for granted but not in initiative. they're members of congress on capitol hill who change the world in a very meaningful way and that's still an opportunity if we recognize we need to care about. sorry for that little speech. >> how do we know kind of the counterterrorism, is very much her? [inaudible] >> the question is how do we know when we've won? >> were in no danger of women anytime soon. this has become a sugarless because it's a fair question obviously. what you measure for success and how do we know when we stopped, and that we are so far away from that now a more further away than when this president took office in the policies he's recommending will take us further and further from that because until we can start measuring the hectares covered by al qaeda affiliate, i guarantee you a question of whether we've won or not is nonoperative and right now the measurement is on the increase rather than decrease. so it's a fair question, but we need to recognize where we are in history. this is more like stalingrad 1943. hopefully
.s. embassy? >> they are anti-capitalist. and they're very, very opposed to the u.s. and nato. analysts say probably two reasons for this attack. one is to embarrass the turkish government. two is to protest the presence of u.s. patriot missiles on turkish soil. right now, 400 american troops are in turkey and they are moving that patriot missile battery into position on turkey's border with syria. turkey requested that help because of the mortars flying in from syria and they wanted the american missile to help shoot it down. >> and chris, how was the attacker able to gain access to the embassy compound? with all this talk about embassy security and what happened in ben gauzy, how was the attacker able to get there? >> basically he walked up to the embassy wear along suicide vest. but it's a gated compound with blast doors, reinforced woibs, and several checkpoints. he never made it past the very first checkpoint. so when he exploded his vest, it killed one of the local turkish guards whoed what been working for the embassy. it also injured two more guards but they were behind bullet-proof
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
to the parliamentarians of nato. these parliamentarians were very supportive of american drone policy and many of the nato countries are developing their own programs. i asked in english baroness, what will she say when china or iran vaporizes someone on the london bridge because they believe they are a threat to their country? what would you possibly say to object when the argument for drones that we now have the authority to take out anyone or anything in other countries that threaten us? it is anathema under international law. after world war two, we developed an international law that developed stability where countries have to take steps before they go to war. they cannot act unilaterally. the obama and bush administrations have torn that structure down. what is left is the state of nature. the american government that played such a key role in developing this international law is returning the world to a state of nature where the strongest country does whatever it wants. you have to ask yourself -- what happens when we are no longer the strongest country? what happens when there is another country t
the world bank and nato that protected our interest and benefited people and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence to the strength of their economies rather than their militaries are going political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors, like active this, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is, w
chiefly the u.n., the imf the world bank and nato that protected our interests, defending universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions combat setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. we see more passed power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their military and political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that defy unilateral solutions. as president obama's said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. said the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we as
including working at the n.s.c. on detail, at nato headquarters, brought at the middle east and the pentagon. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
, this time in turkey, a nato ally. we'll talk to a man that knows all about turkey, retired lieutenant ralph peters and why they targeted the embassy now. imagine being on a flight and pilot passing out in midair? this happened last night. terrifying ordeal just ahead. and president's pick getting harsh reviews for his performance at confirmation hearing. why was chuck hagel so unprepared? >> correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> my reference. >> are you going to answer the question. the question is, were you right or wrong? ♪ i don't wanna be right [ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you. it just tastes that way. [ female announcer ] honey nut cheerios cereal -- heart-healthy, whole grain oats. you can't go wrong loving it. >>. >> alisyn: we want to tell you new developments on the growing crisis with iran and nuclear program. rogue nation announcing plans to ramp up uranium enrichment facilities. they will install advanced centrifuges that could speed up the enrichment process. u.s. calling this, quote a provocative step and comes as the u.s. continues to try to convince iran to end
for the u.n., world bank, and nato that defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions and shaping international affairs. two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different war. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. nine state actors are empowered. we faced challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and the fight unilateral solutions. the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. the geometry has become more distributed and defused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. the question we ask every day is what does this mean for america? how can we invents our interests and also appalled a just rule based international order, a system that does provide clearer rules of the road to fair labor standards. we have to be smart about how we use our powe
.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, that benefited peoples and nation around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. has said, thebama old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this
as nato took the mission, the mission evolved into something different. but it is important to remember how it started. it is absolutely, i think, a fair question to say why did you act in libya in this circumstance under the doctrine, if you will, or the principle, if you will, of the responsibility to protect noncombat taxes -- b combat taxes, why did you choose to do that in libya and not choose -- or choose to not do that in other places? each circumstance, of course, is significantly different. and it has to be measured on its own merits. it also addresses, i think, the limits of power. military power does not solve all problems. and importantly in libya, there was aup security council resolution -- a u.n. security council resolution that called for this mission and authorized all available means. in syria there is no such security council resolution that would, that would provide the legal underpinning for an operation in syria similar to what was conducted in libya. so it's a great question, but there are significant differences, i think. i should caveat all of that by reminding
could say about him? the nato bombing killed ultimately, if you include all of the allied movement, over 30,000 people ended up dying. if you look at the fall of libya and what he did, some people have our dimension it has the best health-care system and africa and the best literacy. people throughout africa said they did support ghadafi and did not want to bomb. libya has accepted sharing resources with others, unlike other regions like nigeria. there were given shelter and food. he supported them as brothers when they came in. not only that, but before the u.s. had basically control over most of the communications systems and africa, he put up several billion dollars for satellite systems so that africans would not have to pay the rental fees. the africans paid much less for communications across the country. i think you're giving a very one-sided picture of it. can you tell us what you think he did that was good and any criticism of the u.s. bombing? guest: there are a couple of good things i can say. one was the promotion of women in this society. he was very pronounced about that. w
with india. i could go on and on and on. nato expansion. all of the things we now take for granted were not initiatives of the clinton administration, they were initiatives of members of congress here on capitol hill who changed the world in a very meaningful way. and that is still an opportunity if only we recognize that it's something that we need to care about. sorry for my little speech, but you have two former capitol hill staffers here, so -- >> hi -- [inaudible] general question, how do we know when we've won? like with regard to the kind of counterterrorism, "zero dark thirty" movement. is there, like, a metric? how is -- does there -- >> repeat the question. the question is how do we know when we've won? >> don't worry about it. [laughter] we're in no danger of winning anytime soon. [laughter] this is, this has become a shib list because -- it's a fair question, obviously, what's your measure for success and how do we know when we've p stopped or when we can p sop. when we can stop. but we are so far away from that now, and we're further away from that now than when this presid
. the president moved and decided he was going to become engaged to nato in ways that met our interests at the time it got the job done. i thought it was smart. the way he approached that was very effective and the results were exactly what we wanted to cheat. -- achieve. we could tell if we did this -- results were exactly what we wanted to achieve. we recommended no-fly. those things were put into place. i think the american people approved of the way that was handled. we had just come out of iraq. the aftermath of all of these places, we need to spend some time on this. there is a monumental transformation taking place. this is the biggest upheaval of the bill that part of the world -- in that part of the world since the ottoman empire. many of the country's -- countries lines were drawn in relatively arbitrary ways. people were put in places of power. it is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the world. i am not sure every policy has always been as sensitive or thoughtful about that as it ought to be. >> i want to clarify. on my state about libya, i was -- statement about li
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)